Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arpit Naraniwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 June, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:25499]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7935/2024
Arpit Naraniwal S/o Sampat Naraniwal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Jambhesver Nagar, Bhilwara, Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Aaditi D/o Vijay Misra, R/o 137, Laxmi Vihr, Baba Dham ,
Pratapnagar, Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7570/2024
Arpit Naraniwal S/o Sampat Naraniwal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
18- Jambleshwar Nagar, Near Hotel Oasis, Bhilwara, Thana
Pratapnagar, Dist. Bhilwara,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Simaran Upadhyaya D/o Anil Upadhyaya, Aged About 26
Years, R/o G.b. 25, New Bapunagar, Bhilwara,raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2324/2025
1. Arpit Naraniwal S/o Sampat Naraniwal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 18- Jambleshwar Nagar, Near Hotel Oasis,
Bhilwara, Thana Pratap Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara,raj.
2. Sampat Naraniwal S/o Banshi Lal Naraniwal, Aged About 58
Years, R/o 18- Jambleshwar Nagar, Near Hotel Oasis,
Bhilwara, Thana Pratap Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara,raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Simaran Upadhyaya D/o Anil Upadhyaya, Aged About 26
Years, R/o G.b. 25, New Bapunagar, Bhilwara,raj.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 04/06/2025 at 09:41:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (2 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manish Shishodiya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Deepesh Birla
Mr. Mr. Deepak Gurnani
Mr. Varun Arora
Mr. Farooq Ahmed
Mr. Ashok Kumar
For Respondent No.1 Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, AGA
For Respondent No.2 Mst.A Ms. Khushi Upadhyay
Respondent No.2 Mst.S present in person
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
03/06/2025
By this common order, challenge laid by the petitioners to
three different FIRs under various sections of IPC, 1860 (BNS,
2023) are being decided together.
Brief facts giving rise to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.7570/2024 read as under:
By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer
has been made by the petitioner to quash and set aside the FIR
No.0115/2024 dated 06.02.2024 registered at PS:- Pratap Nagar,
Bhilwara, District:- Bhilwara at the instance of the respondent
No.2- 'S'.
In the impugned FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioner
met with the complainant- respondent No.2 about 06-07 years
prior to the date of the lodging of the FIR and started following
and pressurizing her to become his friend. When the
respondent No.2 did not agree to the proposal of the petitioner's
friendship, the petitioner in order to entrap the complainant, gave
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (3 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
her fictitious assurance of marriage and established physical
relations with her in Landmark Hotel. As per the FIR, the
petitioner thereafter, on multiple occasions made physical relations
with the complainant on a false pretext of marriage. In the
meantime, the complainant-respondent No.2 continued to request
the petitioner to solemnize marriage with her as she developed
and maintained consensual relationship purely because of alleged
promise made by the petitioner to marry her.
In the FIR, it has been stated that the petitioner avoided the
multiple requests so made by the complainant and therefore, in
these compelling circumstances, the respondent No.2- 'S' decided
to end her life by consuming heavy dosage of sleeping pills. The
complainant was admitted in the Hospital on 15.01.2024. The
petitioner after the complainant was discharge from the Hospital,
on 19.01.2024, took her to Sessions Court, Bhilwara and
purchased one stamp paper in her name and got some material
typed. The signatures of the complainant were also obtained by
the petitioner on the aforesaid document without allowing her to
go through the contents of the document. When the complainant
requested the petitioner to hand over a copy of the said
document, she came to know that the documents indicating live-in
relations between the petitioner and the complainant have got
prepared by the petitioner.
In these circumstances, the complainant- 'S' went to the
house of the petitioner and met with the petitioner's father. The
complainant informed the petitioner's father that how and under
what circumstances, she developed consensual relationship with
the petitioner. The father of the petitioner thereupon, told the
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (4 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
complainant- 'S' that she should stay away from his son i.e. the
petitioner herein.
On receiving the information about commission of crime, the
police officials of PS:- Pratap Nagar Bhilwara, District Bhilwara
registered the impugned FIR against the petitioner for offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC.
Brief facts giving rise to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.7935/2024 read as under:
In this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing of the FIR No.0076/2024 dated 19.03.2024, registered
against him at PS- Sadar Bhilwara, District:- Bhilwara by the
respondent No.2- 'A' alleging interalia that she came in contact
with the petitioner in the year 2020. The petitioner and
respondent No.2- 'A' developed liking for each other. In the year
2021, the petitioner took respondent No.2- 'A' in a resort where he
developed physical relationship with her on the false pretext of
marriage. In the impugned FIR, it has further been alleged that
the petitioner continued relationship with respondent No.2 by
assuring her that he would marry her in due course of time. Later
on, the respondent No.2 came to know that the petitioner is a
drug addict and has been sent to the rehabilitation centre.
The complainant -respondent No.2 in the FIR, has further
alleged that in the month of May-June, 2023, the petitioner again
contacted the respondent No.2- 'A' and called her to Raddison
Hotel, Udaipur where he told the respondent No.2 that he could
not keep his promise of marrying her as he was in rehabilitation
centre. Now since, he has come out of the rehabilitation centre, he
will certainly marry her. The petitioner again by assuring the
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (5 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
respondent No.2 on his promise of marrying her, established
physical relationship with her. As per the FIR, when the
respondent No.2 resisted and protested, the petitioner showed her
various obscene videos and photographs and threatened that if
she does not accede to the advances made by him and would
make any attempt to discontinue the relationship with him, he
would make them viral on social media platforms.
As per the FIR, in the month of February, 2024, the
complainant-respondent No.2- 'A' received Snapchat messages
from the petitioner who tried to convince her to enter into physical
relations with him by forgiving and forgetting his past conduct.
However, this time, the complainant-respondent No.2 did not fall
in the trap of the petitioner and reported the matter at PS:- Sadar
Bhilwara, District:- Bhilwara.
After receiving the complaint, the police officials registered
the impugned FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC.
Brief facts giving rise to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.2324/2025 read as under:
The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned FIR No.0050/2025
registered at PS:- Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara, District:- Bhilwara.
The allegations in the impugned FIR against the petitioners
i.e. Arpit Naraniwal and his father, Sampat Naraniwal are that on
25.01.2025, Arpit Naraniwal called the respondent No.2- 'S' on her
cell phone and told her to meet him. When she went to meet the
petitioner No.1, he sat in the complainant's car and told her to
forget the past, he loves her so much and wants to solemnize
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (6 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
marriage with her. The petitioner No.2 also joined the conversation
and assured that they wants to settle all past disputes. The
petitioner No.2 instructed the petitioner No.1 and the complainant
to return home after tying the nuptial knot in a temple.
Believing upon the assurances of the petitioners No.1 and 2,
the complainant travelled with the petitioner No.1 to Chittorgarh in
the car of the complainant. As per the FIR, the petitioner No.1
enroute, again by deceiving the complainant established physical
relations with her. Later on, when they reached Arya Samaj
Mandir for performing marriage rituals, the people working in the
said temple, counselled them and told to come the next day for
solemnising marriage as per Arya Samaj rites and rituals. As per
the FIR, after returning from Mandir, the petitioner No.1 called one
of his friends, namely Abhishek Chainani from Udaipur to
Chittorgarh as per the planning between the accused persons.
When Abhishek Chainani joined the petitioner No.1 and the
complainant, they had food in a hotel whereupon, the petitioner
No.1 told the complainant that he had no intentions to marry her
and brought her to Chittorgarh only with a view to have physical
relations with her.
As per the FIR, the entire episode as narrated in the FIR was
a result of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioner No.1 in
connivance with his father, i.e. the petitioner No.2.
On the basis of the aforesaid facts disclosed by the
complainant- respondent No.2 'S', the police officials of PS:-
Pratap Nagar Bhilwara, District:- Bhilwara lodged the above-
mentioned FIR against the petitioners for offence punishable
under Section 64(1) BNS, 2023.
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (7 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
The record of the case indicates that prior to filing of S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7570/2024 with a prayer for quashing
of the FIR No. 115/2024 dated 06.02.2024, the petitioner- Arpit
Naraniwal preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4744/2024 -
Arpit Naraniwal vs. State and Anr. before this Court seeking
issuance of directions to the Police Authorities to conduct a fair
inquiry/investigation regarding impugned FIR No. 115/2024 dated
06.02.2024 registered at PS Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara.
The learned Public Prosecutor in the aforementioned Cr. Misc.
Petition under the directions of the Investigating Officer informed
the Court that after investigation, it transpired that no offence is
made out and a negative FR recommending cancellation of FIR has
been prepared. The same is likely to be filed in due course before
the competent Court.
A coordinate bench of this Court, in view of the fact that
negative final report has been prepared by the Investigating
Officer vide order dated 23.07.2024, was pleased to dismiss the
above-mentioned SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 4744/2024 by
observing that since negative FR is prepared by the investigating
agency, no ground to interfere in the investigation is made out.
A challenge to the FIR No. 76/2024 dated 19.03.2024 for the
offences allegedly committed by the petitioner under Sections
376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC was made prior to filing of the
present SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 7935/2024, by way of filing SB
Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2403/2024- Arpit Naraniwal v Sate and Anr..
When the SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2403/2024 was tcalled
out for hearing by the coordinate bench of this Court, the learned
Public Prosecutor informed the Court that as per the factual report
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (8 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
dated 29.07.2024 produced by him, the investigation reveals that
no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the
petitioner and a negative FR is accordingly under preparation and
shall be filed in due course before the competent criminal Court.
The coordinate bench of this Court, after recording aforesaid
statement of learned Public Prosecutor in order-sheet dated
01.08.2024, was pleased to dispose of SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.
2403/2024, as the Court did not find any reason to keep the
petition pending.
Arguments in relation to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.2324/2025 made before this Court on behalf of the
parties:-
At the time when hearing in relation to S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition Nos.7570/2024, 7935/2024 and 2324/2025 commenced,
learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation/ inquiry in
relation to FIR No.50/2025 registered at PS:- Pratap Nagar,
District:- Bhilwara for offences punishable under Section 64(1)
BNS, 2023 has already been concluded and the police after
making thorough investigation in the matter has found that no
case for alleged offences is made out against the petitioners and a
negative final report is being prepared in the matter which shall be
filed before the competent criminal Court in due course of time.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the
negative final report is under preparation in the present case, he
has no objection in case the present criminal misc petition is
disposed of while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach
this Court again in case, occasion so arises.
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (9 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
In that view of the matter, the instant Criminal Misc.
Petition No.2324/2025 and annexed stay petition are disposed
of with liberty aforesaid. It is also made clear that the respondent
No.2 shall also be at liberty to file a protest petition if so advised,
before appropriate forum qua the negative final report.
Arguments in relation to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions
No.7935/2024 and 7570/2024 raised before this Court on
behalf of the parties:-
Learned Senior Advocate, Shri Manish Shishodiya
vehemently and fervently contended that a bare perusal of the
impugned FIRs would indicate that these have been lodged by the
complainants- 'A' and 'S' (respondents No.2) after alleged promise
of marriage with each of the complainants made by the petitioner,
4-5 years from the date of lodging of the FIRs. No satisfactory
reason for delay in registering the impugned FIRs has been
furnished by the complainants. There is nothing on record to
establish that the alleged false promise to marry was made from
the inception with a view to deceive and establish sexual
relationship. Learned senior counsel submitted that the contents
of the impugned FIRs on the contrary prima facie indicate long
consensual sexual relationship between the parties at different
intervals and at different places i.e. hotels situated in thickly
populated areas. He submitted that there is absolutely no prima
facie case for proceeding further against the petitioner on the
allegation of commission of offences punishable under Section 376
IPC.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the
complainant, Ms. Kushi Sharma and complainant- 'S' present in
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (10 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
person jointly submitted that the impugned FIRs clearly disclose
that the consent to establish physical relationship was obtained by
the petitioner by giving false promise of marriage, though, he did
not have any intention to marry the complainants. The
complainant- 'S' got so perturbed with the ill behavior and inaction
of the petitioner that she tried to commit suicide. It was
contended that the live-in relationship agreement dated
19.01.2024 was got prepared by the petitioner by keeping the
complainant- 'S' in dark. Even if the contents of the document are
taken on the face value, the said document is testimony of the
fact that the complainant- 'S' wanted to be in relationship with
the petitioner throughout her life. The petitioner through the
aforesaid document assured the complainant- 'S' that he will not
only spend rest of his life with her but will also provide her social,
financial security for all times to come. In the said document, the
petitioner further gave assurance that if any child is born out of
their relationship, he will take his/her responsibility and will give
him/her social status and identity of being his/her father. It was
contended that sufficient material is available on record indicating
that the petitioner allured complainants with a false promise of
marriage, on their initial refusal and had relationship with them.
It was vehemently contended that police after making
investigation in relation to impugned FIRs No.76/2024 and
115/2024 have found the offences to be proved against the
petitioner. The police after making thorough investigation, has
prima facie reached to a conclusion that the petitioner gave false
promise/promises to the complainants to marry. The complainants
initially resisted, however, they later on gave the consent believing
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (11 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
that he would marry them and therefore, the consent cannot be
said to be a free consent as it was given under misconception. It
was urged that since a cognizable offence is made out against the
petitioner, this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section
482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) should not quash the impugned
FIRs.
Learned counsel for the complainant- 'A' placed reliance on
the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
the following cases:-
a) K.L.E. Society and Ors. vs. Siddalingesh reported in AIR
2008 SC 1702.
b) Anurag Soni vs. State of Chandigarh reported in AIR
2019 SC 1857.
c) Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnataka reported in
AIR 2008 SC 1126.
In rebuttal, learned senior counsel, Shri Shishodia contended
that the entire investigation in the present case is under the
clouds of doubt. To substantiate this contention, learned senior
counsel submitted that prior to filing of the present criminal misc.
petitions, the petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.4744/2024- 'Arpit Naraniwal vs. State & Anr.' and S.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No.2403/2024- 'Arpit Naraniwal vs. State & Anr.' in
relation to the FIR Nos.115/2024 and 76/2024 respectively. When
the said criminal misc. petitions were taken up for hearing, a
specific statement was made by the learned Public Prosecutor that
since the negative final reports have been proposed, the matters
may be closed. Learned senior counsel submitted that it is really a
matter of surprise that how after completion of investigation on
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (12 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
the same set of facts, oral evidence and documents, now the
offences have been found to be prima facie proved against the
petitioner. He submitted that it appears that after disposal of S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 4744/2024- 'Arpit Naraniwal vs. State
& Anr.' and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 2403/2024- 'Arpit
Naraniwal vs. State & Anr.' due to certain extraneous reasons, the
investigation was transferred to new Investigating Officers, who
have taken a somersault and have held the offences to be proved
against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submitted that the
investigation and the report of the investigation thus, cannot be
said to be free and fair. The petitioner has been made accused on
basis of shoddy investigation and therefore, it is a fit case for
exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section
528 BNSS) for quashing of the impugned FIRs with a view to
secure the ends of justice.
Before concluding the arguments, learned senior counsel
submitted that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner, the
complainants- 'S' and 'A' are close friends and are trying to help
each other in extorting money from the petitioner and his family
by distorting their social reputation by way of lodging false and
frivolous FIRs against the petitioner. He submitted that FIR
No.114/2024 has been lodged by the father of the petitioner at
PS- Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara against complainant- 'S' for offences
punishable under Sections 384 and 451 IPC.
In support of the contentions, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Mahesh Dhamu
Khare vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (13 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
SC 3471 and Lalu Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2876 respectively.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
counsel for the State, learned counsel appearing for respondent
'A', complainant- 'S' who is present in person. Perused the case
diaries of the impugned FIRs brought before the Court by the
Investigating Officers.
Discussion and Conclusion:-
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of
judgments, has held that the powers conferred upon the High
Courts under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS, 2023) should
not be exercised in a routine manner. The inherent powers of
quashing criminal proceedings at its inception should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases. The High Courts should use the inherent powers
cautiously and sparingly particularly when, the FIR against
accused person discloses commission of a cognizable offences.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs.
Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 in paragraph
102, has held as under:-
"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we have given the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused.
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (14 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401,
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the criminal
proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the
requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this
category.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence
alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence
arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the
first information report to decide whether the offence alleged
is disclosed or not.
(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person
do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal
evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In
dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind
the distinction between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and
clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where
there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may
not support the accusation in question. In exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not
embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (15 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial
Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to
invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that
on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation
made against the accused would not be sustained."
In the aforesaid backdrop, the question which needs to be
deliberated upon in the instant criminal misc. petitions, is whether
the impugned FIRs No.115/2024 and 76/2024 registered at PS
Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara and PS Sadar, Bhilwara which are prima
facie disclosing commission of a cognizable offence should be
quashed while holding that the allegations in the said FIRs are
absurd and improbable on the face of record so much so that no
prudent man can reach to a conclusion that there are no grounds
for proceeding against the petitioner or criminal proceedings so
initiated are malafide and have been instituted with malicious
intent of wreaking vengeance on the accused owing to personal
grudge or that the criminal proceedings have been launched with
ulterior motives.
Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"375. Rape.--A man is said to commit "rape" if he--
(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth,
urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or
any other person; or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not
being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a
woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to
cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of
body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any
other person; or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman
or makes her to do so with him or any other person,
under the circumstances falling under any of the following
seven descriptions--
First.--Against her will.
Secondly.--Without her consent.
Thirdly.--With her consent, when her consent has been
obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is
interested, in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly.--With her consent, when the man knows that
he is not her husband and that her consent is given because
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (16 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes
herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly.--With her consent when, at the time of giving
such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication
or the administration by him personally or through another of
any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to
understand the nature and consequences of that to which she
gives consent.
Sixthly.--With or without her consent, when she is under
eighteen years of age.
Seventhly.--When she is unable to communicate
consent."
Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as follows:-
"90. Consent known to be given under fear or
misconception.--A consent is not such a consent as is
intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by
a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of
fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to
believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such
fear or misconception; or
Consent of insane person.--if the consent is given by a
person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is
unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to
which he gives his consent; or
Consent of child.--unless the contrary appears from the
context, if the consent is given by a person who is under
twelve years of age. "
In the present case, in the impugned FIRs No.115/2024 and
76/2024 registered at PS Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara and PS Sadar,
Bhilwara, a specific stance has been taken by both the
complainants that the petitioner developed sexual relationship
with them by making a false promise of marriage. The petitioner
since inception of these relationships, had no intention to honour
the said promise. The unambiguous stance of the complainants is
that the petitioner with the intention to deceive the complainants
to enter into physical relationship, obtained their consent under a
fictitious assurance of marriage, which is not valid consent as per
Section 90 IPC.
True it is that the facts as disclosed in the impugned FIRs
indicate that complainants were in relationship with the petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (17 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
for a considerable long period of time, but the same also disclose
that they were not in continuous relationship and were
intermittent. The parties re-entered into the relationship again on
being assured by the petitioner that he would marry the
complainants. In Indian societal norms, the matters relating to
sexual assault in large number of cases are not being reported by
women timely in police due to the embarrassment which they may
have to face later on. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
the possibility of accused taking benefit of the situation or the fear
instilled in the women victim thus cannot be ruled out. It is highly
probable that the complainants of the impugned FIRs owing to the
embarrassment and on being continuously promised by the
petitioner that he would solemnize marriage with the
complainants, did not report the matter to the police authorities as
they were under a bonafide belief that the petitioner would keep
his promise of performing marriage.
The facts of FIR No.115/2024 indicate that the petitioner
continuously evaded the false promise of marriage made to
complainant- 'S' and the said circumstances drove the
complainant- 'S' to attempt to commit suicide by consuming heavy
dosage of sleeping pills. Further, the petitioner in order to protect
himself, got prepared a stamp paper fortifying the factum of live-
in relationship, on which the signatures of the complainant- 'S'
were obtained deceitfully without even allowing her to have a
glance over the contents of the said documents.
In the opinion of this Court, these acts and actions of the
petitioner hint towards the fact that the petitioner had no intention
of marrying the complainants from the very beginning. The
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (18 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
document of live-in relationship was got prepared by the petitioner
which prima facie indicates that he was giving a fictitious
assurance to the complainant that he has started living with her as
husband.
The FIR No.76/2024 lodged at PS Sadar Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara, indicates that as per the case of the complainant-
respondent No.2- 'A' initially refused have physical relations but
when the petitioner made a promise to marry, she entered into
physical relations with him. Further, their relations discontinued
when the petitioner went to rehabilitation centre. However, after
returning from the rehabilitation centre, the petitioner again
allured the complainant with a false promise to marry her and
established sexual relations with her.
This Court having carefully perused the allegations levelled
against the petitioner in the impugned FIRs, is of the considered
view that possibility of the petitioner obtaining consent for sexual
relations from the complainants under misconception of fact
cannot be ruled out. This Court while exercising inherent powers
under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) cannot minutely go
into the correctness of the allegations levelled against the
petitioner. At this stage, this Court is not expected to either scan
the entire material available on record or to record its finding on
each of the charges levelled against the petitioner and therefore,
this Court is of the firm view that the impugned FIRs cannot be
labelled as false/frivolous FIRs which have been lodged with
intention of wreak vengeance or with ulterior motives particularly
when the case diaries of impugned FIRs produced before this
Court indicate that during the course of investigation, the
[2025:RJ-JD:25499] (19 of 19) [CRLMP-7935/2024, 7570/2024 & 2324/2025]
investigating agency has collected material to establish
commission of an offence, warranting further investigation in the
matter.
In wake of discussion made herein above, no ground for
quashing of the impugned FIRs is made out and consequently, the
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions No.7935/2024 and 7570/2024
and the annexed stay petitions are dismissed being devoid of any
merit.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each files.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
